Page No. 1/3 GAHC010170612018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5312/2018 M/S. BLOOMY GAS AGENCY A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM BEING REPRESENTED BY SRI NABA KUMAR BHUYAN, AGE 58 YEARS, SON OF LATE BHOLANATH BHUYAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. JAGI, P.S. JAGIROAD, PIN- , DISTRICT- MORIGAON (ASSAM). VERSUS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION-AOD AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADDRESS INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, G-9, ALI YABAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI- 400051. 2:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER LPG SALES INDANE AREA OFFICE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION-AOD EAST POINT TOWER 3RD FLOOR BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 781021. 3:BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR REGISTERED OFFICE BHARAT BHAWAN 4 AND 6 CURRIMBHOI ROAD BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI- 400001. 4:THE TERRITORY MANAGER (LPG) M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED RAIGANJ TERROTORY DIST.- NORTH DINAJHPUR PIN- 733134 MADHYA PRADESH. Page No. 2/3 5:JADAB BORAH IOC REFERENCE NO. IOC07511091413072108 S/O. SRI RATAN BORAH RESIDENT OF MAYONG P.O. RAJA MAYONG DIST.- MORIGAON PIN- 783411 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R CHAKRAVORTY, MR D DAS,MR. M CHALIHA,MR R SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I O C, MR. M K CHOUDHURY (R3 & 4),MR. A BARKATAKI (R3 & 4),MR. M K CHOUDHURY (R3 & 4),MR P BHARADWAJ (R3 & 4),MR. N BARUAH (R3 & 4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 09.05.2025 Heard Mr. S. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 – 4. 2. The petitioner herein, has challenged an Advertisement dated 12.06.2018 whereby applications were invited for appointment of selection and appointment of LPG Distributors in a number of locations including one at Raja Mayang. 3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 – 4 has submitted that the respondent no. 5, impleaded herein, had already been issued a Letter of Intent [LoI] on 03.10.2018 and subsequent thereto, the respondent no. 5 has been appointed as the LPG Distributor at the subject-location, Raja Mayang vide a Letter of Appointment [LoA] dated 31.12.2020. Mr. Sarma has submitted that as the LoI and the LoA have not been challenged in this writ petition for about a period of 5 [five] years by the petitioner and the LoI and the LoA had given rise to new causes of action, this writ petition has become infructuous. 4. Having regard to the nature of challenge made in this writ petition and considering the Page No. 3/3 fact that a LoA was issued in favour of the respondent no. 5 as far back as on 03.10.2018 and thereafter, the respondent no. 5 was appointed as a distributor for the subject-location at Raja Mayang on 31.12.2020 by the respondent IOCL by the LoA, this writ petition, in the considered view of the Court, has become infructuous. It is Accordingly observed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to challenge the LoI dated 03.10.2018 and LoA dated 31.12.2020 appointing the respondent no. 5 as distributor at the subject-location, Raja Mayang on 31.12.2020 in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised. 5. Mr. Sarma has already handed over a copy of the LoA dated 31.12.2020 to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The LoA dated 31.12.2020, placed by Mr. Sarma, is kept with the case record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant